Re: [patch 2.6.16-rc5-mm2] sched_cleanup-V17 - task throttlingpatch 1 of 2

[Mike Galbraith]

On Sat, 2006-03-04 at 13:33 +1100, Peter Williams wrote:

> >  include/linux/sched.h |    3 -
> >  kernel/sched.c        |  136 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------------
> >  2 files changed, 82 insertions(+), 57 deletions(-)
> > 
> > --- linux-2.6.16-rc5-mm2/include/linux/sched.h.org	2006-03-01 15:06:22.000000000 +0100
> > +++ linux-2.6.16-rc5-mm2/include/linux/sched.h	2006-03-02 08:33:12.000000000 +0100
> > @@ -720,7 +720,8 @@
> >  
> >  	unsigned long policy;
> >  	cpumask_t cpus_allowed;
> > -	unsigned int time_slice, first_time_slice;
> > +	int time_slice;
> 
> Can you guarantee that int is big enough to hold a time slice in 
> nanoseconds on all systems?  I think that you'll need more than 16 bits.

Nope, that's a big fat bug.

I need to reconsider the nanosecond tracking a bit anyway.  I was too
quick on the draw with the granularity change.  It doesn't do what the
original does, and won't work at all when interrupts become tasks.

To do this properly, I need to maintain separate tick hit count (a.k.a.
time_slice;) and run_time.  If I had slice_info in the first patch, I
could store granularity there and not have to add anything to the task
struct, but alas...

	-Mike

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/